South Burlington DRB reviews revised site plan for 40 Kimball Ave.; parklet location, parking and stormwater remain unresolved

The South Burlington Development Review Board on Feb. 19 continued its review of a site plan application by John Wilking to develop a 1.88-acre parcel at 40 Kimball Ave. with a one‑story, 5,400-square-foot medical office building and associated paving, stormwater controls and site amenities.

The board and applicants spent the majority of the hearing on where to locate a required site amenity (a parklet) and on technical compliance issues including pedestrian connections, parking-lot landscape calculations, a new retaining wall and stormwater details. Applicants presented two main placement options and said they preferred what they labeled “option A,” located adjacent to the sidewalk near Kimball Avenue. John Wilking, the applicant, told the board, “We would ask that you approve option a in the in the setback.”

Why it matters: the preferred option A sits on land the city considers part of the public right‑of‑way. City staff told the board that option A is on city land and that the board lacks authority to approve private development on city land without additional approvals. A staff member said, “Option a is on city land at this point,” and board members agreed the city manager or city council control use of city land. Because option A would encroach on city land, the applicant said it would instead pursue option B — a location pulled slightly into the applicant’s lot — unless the city grants permission to use the right‑of‑way.

Pedestrian access, tree preservation and design details: City staff flagged a site standard requiring a direct pedestrian connection from the public right‑of‑way to the building entrance. Marty Gillies, city staff, explained that standard requires the “shortest possible route” to the building entrance and cautioned the board that relocating the amenity could reopen that compliance question. The applicant’s design includes a mature tree near the proposed parklet; Karl Marshesault, O'Leary Burke civil engineer for the applicant, described “root prune” as “basically just management of existing vegetation” and said the design attempts to preserve the tree while providing access.

Bicycle and locker accommodations: The applicant said the building will include two stacked “bike locker” units sized 36 by 12 by 18 inches and multiple bike racks on the site. John Wilking said the project would include two larger stacked lockers in the locker room, and showed alternate bike‑rack locations if the parklet location is modified.

Parking-lot landscape calculations and a lost space: Applicants and staff disagreed over how to measure interior landscape islands for the parking lot. The applicant’s team said adopting the developer’s typical industry method would yield enough landscape area and an additional parking space (they showed the site with 36 spaces under their method versus 35 under staff’s method). City staff described their counting method as excluding outside corners that do not fall within the practical circle of where cars park and noted that the LDRs do not specify a single counting methodology. Marty Gillies summarized the staff methodology and said the presentation corrected an initial calculation error. The applicant said the project remains above the 10% landscape requirement either way and asked the board to consider restoring one parking space if the board accepts the applicant’s measurement method.

Retaining wall and stormwater review: The applicant presented revised site plans showing an extended retaining wall and removal of decorative boulders to stay outside the city’s 100‑foot river corridor. The applicant’s team said the state has determined the project does not require a state stormwater permit because the development is below the state threshold, but city stormwater staff asked for retaining‑wall details and asked how the new wall and catch basins would interact with the existing spillway and outlet pipe. The applicant said stormwater flow will be collected with three catch basins and routed to an on‑site detention facility; the applicant pledged to coordinate with Marissa (city stormwater reviewer) and provide retaining‑wall details for final review.

Other technical and program items: The applicant confirmed a proposed change from an American beech tree to a Brilliant Scarlet Oak at a snow‑storage edge, and said the horticultural planting palette was not otherwise changed. The applicant also said they will provide two stacked bike lockers in the locker room and will label the lockers "bike locker" if the board requests.

Public comment and next steps: No members of the public offered comments during the hearing. After discussion the board closed the public hearing on SB2501; a motion to close the hearing carried by voice vote. The applicant was informed the board will issue a decision after staff and the applicant address the outstanding details and return to the board for final action.